BRICS building a new Multi Polar World

For decades, the West, led by the US, has been the primary global arbiter of global  policy. However, the countries outside the West have long been unhappywith the global rules established by the West and the US stated but unclear what are thecomponents of the 'Rules Based Order'
Now for the BRICS to develop an alternative world order as in a new Multi Polar World , it is essential to understand the shortcomings of the current one. The key issues with the current international order are not with its values or institutions, but with how they are implemented and managed.
The US dominated and led international order has, in practice, been based on the US  whims rules and strategic interests, rather than on those of the UN or on a global consensus.

From a strategic standpoint, the US and its allies or vassals have divided Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. Following the end of the Cold War, the US and its partners sought to engage Russia economically and in the energy sector with a view to stabilising global energy markets.
However, they excluded Moscow from European security mechanisms. They expanded NATO to Russia's borders and ignored its concerns and we can see the the consequences of this which was the Ukraine conflict.

In the Middle East, the BRICS member Iran was excluded from any peace mechanism for over four decades and was subjected to economic sanctions, political and, indirectly, military pressure. US allies in the Middle East also attempted to impose their security costs on the US by engaging Washington in regional and domestic conflicts, which in turn destabilised the entire region.

A similar approach is being taken with China in East Asia. The United States benefits from the Chinese market and engages with China economically. However, in order to counter from China's rising military power, it is necessary to compete with Beijing. This is why China is regarded as a potential security risk. Emphasising the perceived threat from China helps the US to limit Beijing's economic power and influence. This approach also benefits the other parties.

By creating the perception of adversaries and enemies, it is easier to justify the expenditure of over 800 billion dollars on military budgets annually and to convince the public that they are protecting the country from external threats. So Russia is an essential bogeyman and now so is China.
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

By identifying potential adversaries in regional or global contexts, the US aims to exert control and influence over its allies and partners. Without such an approach, US allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia would probably be much more inclined to pursue strategic autonomy and independent foreign policies.
However by manipulating their allies and partners the US seeks to gain the upper hand over its rivals (Russia, Iran and China). By focusing on perceived threats, competitors will be unable to capitalise on opportunities and realise their economic and strategic potential.

The United States has been involved in so many military conflicts worldwide for a longer period of time than any other country in history.

From a political standpoint, the most significant shortcoming is the use of double standards. Despite espousing the virtues of a rules-based international order, the United States and its allies have demonstrated a serious  disregard for these principles in their actions in Yugoslavia ,the Ukraine and in the broader Middle East.
The United States and its allies have been involved in numerous instances of human rights violations, international and humanitarian law violations, and the development of nuclear weapons, among other actions that contradict their stated values.
is evident that violations of human rights, international and humanitarian laws, as well as the occupation, invasion, development of nuclear weapons and even the commission of genocide are permitted if perpetrated by the US and/or its allies and partners.

Another shortcoming of the current international order is the overreliance on destructive power and the failure to share the burden fairly. Over the past three decades, the US has not made sufficient efforts to engage other parties (including its allies) in making critical decisions regarding wars and conflicts. The US forms small coalitions and initiates military action, subsequently attempting to convene an international conference for the purposes of "peace-building" and "burden-sharing".
In instances where other parties are reluctant to collaborate, and/or the conflicts are deemed too costly, the US withdraws from the situation, leaving the resolution of the conflict to other parties. The situation in Afghanistan represents the latest example of this approach, with significant costs imposed on the region, particularly on Iran.

The final issue with the US-led order is the weaponisation of finance and business as a new tool.This use of sanctions as led to dissatisfaction among numerous countries and even Western companies. Given the high costs of direct conflict and a lack of interest among Western societies in bearing these costs, the US and its allies have increasingly turned to economic and financial sanctions to advance their positions and undermine those who are not aligned with them.

The current world order is facing a number of challenges, which have led to a sense of dissatisfaction among countries, companies and societies. This has prompted a search for alternative solutions at the regional and global levels.

It is essential that the alternative order be globally acceptable and respectable. The proposed order should be based on the UN and global values and interests, including non-intervention, respect for international and humanitarian law and human rights; multi-polarity; indivisible security; peaceful development; peaceful coexistence; opposition to unilateral coercive measures; cultural diversity, etc.
These values, endorsed by BRICS member states, are more global and inclusive. Nevertheless, the mere presence of shared values is insufficient. It is essential that words have weight.
To what extent are the BRICS member states capable of advancing an alternative order aligned with the UN and global values? Affirmative.

In terms of military capabilities, the majority of BRICS member states are well-positioned to defend their interests. It is notable that each grouping comprises three nuclear powers: the US, UK and France in the G7, and Russia, China and India in BRICS.

Despite the G7 members having access to more advanced technologies, these have not been instrumental in winning the majority of significant conflicts since the Vietnam War. The United States was unsuccessful in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Despite the provision of advanced weapons by the US, Israel has been unable to achieve decisive victories against a small group in Palestine. Similarly, the provision of advanced technologies by NATO to Ukraine has not resulted in the country achieving significant military successes on the battlefield.
In terms of purchasing power parity, the combined GDP of the BRICS countries has overtaken that of the G7. In 2023, the BRICS accounted for 32% of global GDP, while the G7 accounted for 29%. According to IMF data, in 2024 emerging markets and developing economies (which are seeking reform in global governance) are expected to account for 59% of global GDP, while developed economies will represent 40%. The combined market size of the BRICS countries is larger, and they possess greater natural resources. Furthermore, they have younger, more educated populations and a higher economic growth rate than advanced, developed countries.

In terms of geography, the BRICS+ group is more global and more inclusive than the G7. With the exception of Japan, the G7 members are all Western countries. In contrast, the BRICS countries are located across a diverse range of continents, from China in the Far East to Brazil in South America, and from Russia in the north to South Africa. Recently, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the centre have also joined the group. The BRICS+ alliance has the potential to establish a global network that will play an influential role in shaping global regulations. However, for BRICS+ to become a viable alternative to existing global governance structures, there are a few shortcomings that need to be addressed. These include:

Financial mechanisms: The lack of effectiveness of US/EU sanctions is largely due to the reliability of existing financial institutions, which require companies and countries to comply with and, in some cases, exceed the requirements set out in the sanctions.

It is essential for BRICS to establish its own financial and legal framework to safeguard member states, their businesses and other organisations operating within or with links to BRICS countries against the extraterritorial laws and regulations of the US/EU.
Synergy: There is still room for improvement in the level of cooperation and coordination among BRICS member states in comparison with that of the G7. As long as BRICS member states comply with US/EU unilateral/multilateral coercive measures against other countries, whether willingly or otherwise, they reinforce the current US-dominated international order. Consequently, other countries will not view BRICS as a viable alternative.

Connectivity is a key factor in the development of a new global governance system. Connectivity represents a third crucial element in the establishment of an alternative, competitive global governance system. Corridors are of particular importance in this context, particularly in regions where the US has less control, such as the Silk Road and the North-South Corridor, which connects India with Central Asia, the Caucasus and Russia through Iran.

A comprehensive and indivisible approach to security is required. It is important to recognise that security cannot be limited to the military and intelligence. It is also vital to prioritise economic, social and cyber security. BRICS should focus its efforts on investing in economic and social development in West Asia, Central Asia, Africa and South America. By establishing connections between disparate developing regions worldwide, BRICS can effectively position itself as a potential alternative rulemaker in global governance, aligned with the principles set forth by the UN.